The David Givens Delusion

[patsox23]

I'll make this short and very likely not-so-sweet:

The Patriots offense misses Deion Branch. It does not miss David Givens. I liked Givens. I was happy he got his pay-day - he put in a lot of hard work and he got the $$$ he deserves. But he was what he was - the ULTIMATE example of a system-WR. He's solid. He's a good solid #2/#3 WR. I mean, I guess you can argue that we miss him in the sense that we would miss ANY WR who knows the system (like we miss, I suppose, David Patten), but that is so clearly not the thrust of the posts, articles, punditry that's out there right now. Bottom line: Reche Caldwell has replaced Givens - and that's WITHOUT the benefit of having Branch double-teamed, leaving him open, which is the world Givens operated in.

So let's please stop the LIE that is the coupling of Branch with Givens. It's ridiculous, baseless and silly. Branch was a terrific player, who got an outsized contract - but is CERTAINLY missed. His absence clearly hurts the Patriots in 2006. (We'll leave out the solid compensation we got, which will help in 2007 and beyond.)

I love David Givens, but his absence isn't why the O is struggling. And that contract he got is insane. It's the LAST thing the Pats should've agreed to.

 

[Pujo]

The only thing I can say about Givens is we would probably trade any of our receivers for him in a hearbeat, so in that sense we miss him. Just because he wasn't as good as Branch doesn't mean he wasn't good.

 

[MDD]

The only thing I can say about Givens is we would probably trade any of our receivers for him in a hearbeat, so in that sense we miss him. Just because he wasn't as good as Branch doesn't mean he wasn't good.

Not so fast -

I wouldn't trade Caldwell or C. Jackson for Givens.

Going beyond those two it's an unfair comparison, since Givens is a #2.

 

[Pujo]

Not so fast -

I wouldn't trade Caldwell or C. Jackson for Givens.

Going beyond those two it's an unfair comparison, since Givens is a #2.

I'd take Givens over Caldwell. Jackson is a tough call - Givens would be more productive now, but we don't know Jackson's potential yet.

And it doesn't matter whether a receiver is a #1, #2, or #5 in the context of this thread, I'd still take Givens as a #2 over Gaffney as a #4.

 

[Mungo]

noway caldwell would have had the game givens had vs. Pitt last year. 2nd givens could stretch extra yards, he had pipes for arms. caldwell, well he just sometimes flat out hits the deck after a reception. This is what I see on tv.

 

[BelichickFan]

I'd trade Caldwell & Jackson for Givens if the money weren't an issue. Given their current salaries, I wouldn't trade either one for him.

 

[patsox23]

The only thing I can say about Givens is we would probably trade any of our receivers for him in a hearbeat, so in that sense we miss him. Just because he wasn't as good as Branch doesn't mean he wasn't good.

In what way could anyone possibly read my initial post and come out with the idea that I was saying "because he's not as good as Deion, he's not good at all?"

PLEASE READ THE POST and don't muddy the thread with non sequiturs.

 

[patsox23]

The point of the thread is that people saying "They let Givens and Branch go and didn't do anything to replace them" is ridiculous. They DID replace Givens, and at a fraction of the cost. Branch is a totally legit "loss," but Givens is not since he's been ably replaced by Caldwell.

Can we please try to stay on point?

 

[AzPatsFan]

The only thing I can say about Givens is we would probably trade any of our receivers for him in a hearbeat, so in that sense we miss him. Just because he wasn't as good as Branch doesn't mean he wasn't good.

But nowhere near $5 million a year good...

 

[TeamPats]

I think you guys are missing Patsox23's point, a WR must be graded via productivity and the price you pay for that productivity. No one here is going to deny Givens or Branch's production but you MUST take into account that that production will come at an enromous cost. Caldwell is a steal right now and is giving us production at a low cost. Compared to what it would have cost to retain Givens, Caldwell wins hands down.

As for Branch, Patsox is right, he was a great asset but his price got too high and that cannot be ignored.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'd trade Caldwell & Jackson for Givens if the money weren't an issue. Given their current salaries, I wouldn't trade either one for him.

So I take it you mean that, in terms of football talent only, Caldwell and Jackson combined aren't as good as David Givens.

I'd make that statement regarding Caldwell and Givens trade straight up, but I still feel like Jackson has too much Year 2 potential to be thrown under that bus.

But I do appreciate someone else who is able to separate discussions of football talent from salary issues.

The Patriots made a VERY generous offer to Givens - I believe they came in over $20 mil - and had they known what would happen with Branch might have offered more - but no one is going to fault them for not going beyond the Titans.

Fault them for not going harder after Stallworth or Javon Walker - yes - but no one thinks they should have paid that much for Givens.

 

[BelichickFan]

So I take it you mean that, in terms of football talent only, Caldwell and Jackson combined aren't as good as David Givens.

I'd make that statement regarding Caldwell and Givens trade straight up, but I still feel like Jackson has too much Year 2 potential to be thrown under that bus.

There would be some serious downside in doing what I said I'd do. But I do like Givens a good amount. However it's basically irrelevant as Caldwell is making 10-20% of what Givens is.

 

[patsox23]

In a million years I wouldn't trade Chad Jackson for David Givens, money aside. Too much dynamic, athletic potential there. I wouldn't trade Caldwell for him, at this point, either. He's been just as solid, and perhaps more consistent, as a pass-receiver as Givens was. When the money enters into it, I'm even more sure I wouldn't make that deal.

Some of the responses on this thread are exactly the mythologizing of the old #87 I'm talking about. It's just ridiculous. You guys act like he was Derrick Mason or something. He wasn't even Joe Jurevicious. You just know his name and appreciate the wide-open TD's he caught when Branch was double-teamed in the playoffs. Givens was a good, solid player. That's it.

 

[Pats726]

And how many years was givens in the system?? I agree..he worked hard and did a LOT to make himself a solid receiver..but who is to say that after a few years Caldwell will noy be as solid..maybe even better?? Branch was a loss..and one the team did NOY count on..whose fault is that?? More Btancj's greefdness than anyrhing else. The receivers will only get better in time..Patsox had the correct take on DB...but the question is woild the team be better off with those two AND the high salaries?? NO WAY!! I mean the team wished to pay bucks for Mason..but Masonw as such a more complete receiver..and Branch wanted that type money..but wasn't as hood as that..as well as demanding the last year of the contract be erased..which was a non-starter.

 

[Pujo]

I wouldn't trade Caldwell for him, at this point, either. He's been just as solid, and perhaps more consistent, as a pass-receiver as Givens was.

I wouldn't buy that without some cold, hard statistics.

 

[Mark Morse]

Givens played very well when he was called on to be the #1 receiver when Branch was out with injuries. Branch did not play well when Givens was not in the lineup. Givens could have been that #1 guy, but the price was high. The fault I have with the Patriots is that they played this all wrong and wound up letting both guys walk with nothing to show for it. Would Caldwell be better receiver with Givens as the #1? The Patriots had the money but wouldn't spend it is the bottom line.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Alot of the Charlie Weis system relies on sight adjustments from both the QB and the WR, so the longer you play in the system, the better you are going to be in it. The biggest point for that is Troy Brown, he is clearly the least athelitically talented of all the Pats recievers past and present, however he constantly gets open. He sits in the right place and the QB trust that they are both making the same read, so he throws the ball before he makes his break, as opposed to waiting to see if the WR has indeed made the same read and then throw the ball.

Givens was outstanding while he was here, he picked up the system well (but not in his first year). In 2003 he played in 13 games, had a grand total of 9 recpetions for 92 yards, one touchdown, and one fumble.

Chad Jackson so far has 10 receptions in 10 games for 131 yeards and three touchdowns. Now I'm not syaing that Jackson is having a great year, or anything close to it. I'm just saying that the kid has all the talent in the world and it is a complicated system, and maybe we should give the kid some time before we throw him under the bus.

Givens was a solid blocker and was very good at getting open especially in the end zone. The Pats made a very nice offer to him, and he simple took the money.

Branch had a much better rookie year: 13 games, 43 rec. 489 yards, 2 TD. Plus he got hurt at the end of the year, but still not mind numbing numbers.

The problems the Patriots are having is that most WRs are not exactly "team" players and do not want to go to a system where they know that their numbers are not going to be there. I think that was the problem with Gabriel, and that is why people like Walker, Mason, and even MeShaun (all of whom the Pats made serious runs at) didn't sign here. The Pats had a very good team guy in Branch and they really thought that in the end he would re-sign, but once he sat out and demanded a trade, their hands were tied. What the WRs need is more time in the system, not more WRs.

 

[aabtec]

I'll make this short and very likely not-so-sweet:

The Patriots offense misses Deion Branch. It does not miss David Givens. I liked Givens. I was happy he got his pay-day - he put in a lot of hard work and he got the $$$ he deserves. But he was what he was - the ULTIMATE example of a system-WR. He's solid. He's a good solid #2/#3 WR. I mean, I guess you can argue that we miss him in the sense that we would miss ANY WR who knows the system (like we miss, I suppose, David Patten), but that is so clearly not the thrust of the posts, articles, punditry that's out there right now. Bottom line: Reche Caldwell has replaced Givens - and that's WITHOUT the benefit of having Branch double-teamed, leaving him open, which is the world Givens operated in.

So let's please stop the LIE that is the coupling of Branch with Givens. It's ridiculous, baseless and silly. Branch was a terrific player, who got an outsized contract - but is CERTAINLY missed. His absence clearly hurts the Patriots in 2006. (We'll leave out the solid compensation we got, which will help in 2007 and beyond.)

I love David Givens, but his absence isn't why the O is struggling. And that contract he got is insane. It's the LAST thing the Pats should've agreed to.

Givens is missed. He was able read opposing defenses..had a great raport with Brady and was a very good WR. Please stop with the "we don't miss anyone bs" Anyone that has watched this team realizes that we miss Branch and Givens.

 

[Phokus]

Actually, i remember when deion branch was hurt, givens was extremely productive and helped the pats win games.

 

[spacecrime]

But I do appreciate someone else who is able to separate discussions of football talent from salary issues.

The question was whether you would trade Givens for any of our receivers. How can you talk trade without the effect of salary? You trade for a guy, you own his salary.

Otherwise you get into stuff like, "The players I'd like the Patriots to have next year on offense are Tom Brady, Ladanian Tomlinson, Lorenzo Neal, Marvin Harrison, Chad Johnson, Tony Gonzales, Antonio Gates, Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, Olin Kreutz, Will SHields and Jonathan Ogden. Now on defense the Pats should go aout and get ... "

Yeah, no mention of salary. Or reality.